Difference between revisions of "Talk:Works Progress Administration"
(Please improve this article) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Walk with me for a moment through one editor's experience of Conservapedia. First, I check Recent Changes, and I see a new article on the Nashville Airport has been created. I know nothing about that, so I read the article - it's perfectly informative for a new, albeit brief article. It mentions that the airport was constructed as a WPA project, and I think - "I'd like to know more about the WPA, I don't know anything about that". So, I wikify [[Works | + | Walk with me for a moment through one editor's experience of Conservapedia. First, I check Recent Changes, and I see a new article on the Nashville Airport has been created. I know nothing about that, so I read the article - it's perfectly informative for a new, albeit brief article. It mentions that the airport was constructed as a WPA project, and I think - "I'd like to know more about the WPA, I don't know anything about that". So, I wikify [[Works Progress Administration]] in the airport article and then skip on over to here to read about the WPA. |
And am met by an absolutely ridiculous article whose first few words tell me what the WPA is ''not'' (remember, I don't know anything about the subject yet), provides me with an image of some musical notes for some reason (was it a music programme?) and then launches both feet first into an incredibly opinionated rant against the WPA which rails against and mocks the WPA before I've even learnt anything about it. I finish the first paragraph knowing NOTHING of any use about the WPA other than what is clearly the opinion of someone who hates it, and that it was apparently a total "waste of effort". Which, given that I've just read that it somehow built the Nashville airport, seems confusing. | And am met by an absolutely ridiculous article whose first few words tell me what the WPA is ''not'' (remember, I don't know anything about the subject yet), provides me with an image of some musical notes for some reason (was it a music programme?) and then launches both feet first into an incredibly opinionated rant against the WPA which rails against and mocks the WPA before I've even learnt anything about it. I finish the first paragraph knowing NOTHING of any use about the WPA other than what is clearly the opinion of someone who hates it, and that it was apparently a total "waste of effort". Which, given that I've just read that it somehow built the Nashville airport, seems confusing. | ||
Is this ''really'' a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Without knowing '''anything''' about the WPA, any reader can immediately see that this article is neither 'Trustworthy' nor 'Encyclopediac' , since it so obviously 100% opinion. It makes your resource look ridiculous - even more so when I moved here from a perfectly reasonable article that tells me that at the very least, the WPA built Nashville's airport, a fact not mentioned in this article under the Tennessee section. The inconsistency in tone and information makes for a VERY uncomfortable feeling of unreliability as I move about the wiki. I would try to help edit the article, but as I said I don't know anything about the WPA, so instead I will simply have to read the Wikipedia article on it which seems to provide a vast amount of information on the program. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT) | Is this ''really'' a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Without knowing '''anything''' about the WPA, any reader can immediately see that this article is neither 'Trustworthy' nor 'Encyclopediac' , since it so obviously 100% opinion. It makes your resource look ridiculous - even more so when I moved here from a perfectly reasonable article that tells me that at the very least, the WPA built Nashville's airport, a fact not mentioned in this article under the Tennessee section. The inconsistency in tone and information makes for a VERY uncomfortable feeling of unreliability as I move about the wiki. I would try to help edit the article, but as I said I don't know anything about the WPA, so instead I will simply have to read the Wikipedia article on it which seems to provide a vast amount of information on the program. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 19:43, May 22, 2008
Walk with me for a moment through one editor's experience of Conservapedia. First, I check Recent Changes, and I see a new article on the Nashville Airport has been created. I know nothing about that, so I read the article - it's perfectly informative for a new, albeit brief article. It mentions that the airport was constructed as a WPA project, and I think - "I'd like to know more about the WPA, I don't know anything about that". So, I wikify Works Progress Administration in the airport article and then skip on over to here to read about the WPA.
And am met by an absolutely ridiculous article whose first few words tell me what the WPA is not (remember, I don't know anything about the subject yet), provides me with an image of some musical notes for some reason (was it a music programme?) and then launches both feet first into an incredibly opinionated rant against the WPA which rails against and mocks the WPA before I've even learnt anything about it. I finish the first paragraph knowing NOTHING of any use about the WPA other than what is clearly the opinion of someone who hates it, and that it was apparently a total "waste of effort". Which, given that I've just read that it somehow built the Nashville airport, seems confusing.
Is this really a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Without knowing anything about the WPA, any reader can immediately see that this article is neither 'Trustworthy' nor 'Encyclopediac' , since it so obviously 100% opinion. It makes your resource look ridiculous - even more so when I moved here from a perfectly reasonable article that tells me that at the very least, the WPA built Nashville's airport, a fact not mentioned in this article under the Tennessee section. The inconsistency in tone and information makes for a VERY uncomfortable feeling of unreliability as I move about the wiki. I would try to help edit the article, but as I said I don't know anything about the WPA, so instead I will simply have to read the Wikipedia article on it which seems to provide a vast amount of information on the program. Aggrieved 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
